Calories consumed in excess of those with which the body needs to be provided to maintain

its weight are normally stored as fat and the body gains weight. Alcoholic beverages are
laden with calories. However, those people who regularly drink two or three alcoholic
beverages a day and thereby exceed the caloric intake necessary to maintain their weight
do not in general gain weight.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?
(A) Some people who regularly drink two or three alcoholic beverages a day avoid exceeding
the caloric intake necessary to maintain their weight by decreasing caloric intake from other
sources.
(B) Excess calories consumed by people who regularly drink two or three alcoholic
beverages a day tend to be dissipated as heat.
(C) Some people who do not drink alcoholic beverages but who eat high-calorie foods do not
gain weight.
(D) Many people who regularly drink more than three alcoholic beverages a day do not gain
weight.
(E) Some people who take in fewer calories than are normally necessary to maintain their
weight do not lose weight.

Answer choice B explains how the calories consumed by drinkers differ from those
consumed by non-drinkers: Excess calories consumed by people who regularly drink two or
three alcoholic beverages a day tend to be dissipated as heat.
The correct answer is B.
Answer choice A does nothing to resolve the discrepancy: whereas the passage is about
drinkers who EXCEED their caloric needs, A is about drinkers who AVOID exceeding their
caloric needs. Apples and oranges.
One more thing: be skeptical of an answer choice that includes SOME. How many is SOME?
SOME could be as a few as one or two. Such a small sampling will have little effect on a CR.

-----------------------------------

Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements, including required use of seat belts and annual safety inspections, have on average higher rates of
accidents per kilometer driven than do provinces and states with less stringent requirements. Nevertheless, most highway safety experts agree that more
stringent requirements do reduce accident rates. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the safety experts belief with the apparently
contrary evidence described above?
A. Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.
B. Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.
C. The roads in provinces and states with stringent car safety programs are far more congested and therefore dangerous than in other provinces and states.
D. Psychological studies show that drivers who regularly wear seat belts often come to think of themselves as serious drivers, which for a few people

discourages reckless driving.

E. Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads then do other provinces and states.

if overconfidence leads to acciedents, the answer would suggest that the experts
are wrong in saying that more stringent standards reduce accident rates.

------------------------------Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed
that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally
superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels
before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who
have worked on hotels built subsequently.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer's
argument?
A. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality
of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built
before 1930.
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly
different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that
building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly
since 1930.

Explanation:

Option D does not impact the two groups of hotels in the same way: this
preservational bias will be stronger the older the hotel. Shoddy buildings that are
new are more likely to be standing than are those that are old, as the former will be
demolished once they get older.
As for B, how does this difference influence the quality of the original carpentry
work.
The lesson to be learned from this question: be wary of studies and

surveys; ensure that the sample is representative of the population in

question

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------if a cause has 2 or more effects and question type is stengthen one, we just need to
support one effect , one necessarily both.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

accord: give or grant someone (power, status, or recognition)

(of a concept or fact) be harmonious or consistent with.

---------------------------------------if A-> B
it does not mean that if

not A -> not B

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. However, it also lowers
the nutritional value of many foods. For example, irradiation destroys a significant
percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain. Proponents of irradiation point
out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. However, this fact is either
beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since
A. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from foods
having a longer shelf life
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect
that irradiation has
C. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas
irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than
carefully controlled irradiation is
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated
with either process individually is compounded

when you get one of these questions, you should try to simplify the argument as much as you can. once you do that - get rid of as much "noise"
and verbiage as possible - you should be able to answer the questions more readily.
in this case, here's a more "noise-free" version of the argument:
People have compared irradiation to cooking and found that they're about the same (in terms of leaching nutrients). Why is this
comparison misleading?
(note that you're ONLY concerned with the "misleading" part, since that's where the blank is. the "beside the point" part DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL.)
-so, you're looking for a reason why it's MISLEADING to COMPARE IRRADIATION TO COOKING.
when you COMPARE two things, the assumption is that they are ALTERNATIVES.
therefore, if a comparison is "misleading", we need a choice that shows that they aren't simply alternatives.
this is what choice (e) does: it shows that some food is irradiated AND cooked. they're not alternatives, so you can't settle the issue with a comparison.
-analogy:
let's say that dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.
if i say "you should just diet, since exercise is no better than dieting", then that's MISLEADING.
why is it misleading?
because ... you can do both, compounding the effects.
same deal here.

----------------------------1) Homeowner Representative: Statistics show that burglar often target houses that
appear unoccupied. Therefore, when home owners away from their homes for
several days, we recommend that they leave lights on, to give the impression that
the house is occupied.

Crime Expert: The same lights continuously on all night long with no change give a
potential burglar a clear signal that the house is unoccupied.

The Crime Expert uses which of the following techniques in responding to the
Homeowner Representative?
(A) calling into question an unstated assumption
(B) pointing out an undesired effect of a recommendation
(C) presenting new evidence that calls the conclusion into question
(D) explaining that a reputed effect is actually a cause
(E) demonstrating that the conclusion is true, but not for the reasons cited

1) The homeowner representative recommends leaving the lights of an empty house on as way to prevent crime. The crime expert points out
that leaving the lights on like this will invite crime.
The credited answer is (B). Giving potential criminal information about who is on vacation would be an unintended and undesirable effect of
the homeowner representatives recommendation.
The homeowner representative explicitly states that he thinks keeping lights on will make would-be burglars assume someone is home, so
thats not a unstated assumption. This is why (A) is incorrect.
What the crime expert is pointing out may be an interpretation or an argument, but its not really evidence. Evidence would be some
unambiguously agreed upon fact. This is why (C) is incorrect.
In this question, leaving the lights on causes various interpretations; clearly, the interpretations of would-be burglars dont cause the lights to
go on. This is why (D) is incorrect.
The crime expert does not agree that the homeowner representatives conclusion is true. This is why (E) is incorrect

2) Marijuana advocate: If marijuana were legalized in this state, the state could start
assessing tax on the drug, increasing state revenues. Since sales would be legal,
the criminal culture supporting the drug would vanish; as crimes ceased, the state
would save money on fighting crime. Overall, the state has a tremendous amount
to gain by making the drug legal.

Attorney General: Studies of legalizing previously illegal drugs in other countries

suggests that criminals controlling the business will not be eager either to sacrifice
their profits or to play by the rules. Moreover, diverting money from crime-fighting
after such legalization gives those criminals more free rein.

The Attorney General uses which of the following techniques in responding to the
marijuana advocate?
(A) citing evidence that demonstrates the conclusion is false
(B) pointing out that the conclusion doesnt follow properly from the premises
(C) questioning the purported relationship between cause and effect
(D) arguing that the same assumption could be used to support an opposing
conclusion
(E) suggesting, by analogy, potential drawbacks that might outweigh the predicted
advantages

The AG points out data from other countries, suggesting that things will not as rosy as the marijuana advocate suggests.

The credited answer is (E). The most important point is that what the AG offers does not constitute direct proof by any means, only an
analogy to similar situations in other countries. The AG doesnt deny that there might be advantages to legalizing marijuana, but merely
points out a host of problems what would also arise.
Choice (A) is too strong: what the AG offers is data from other countries. The way things have played out in other countries may or may not
be the same as the way it will play out in the state in question. Its a suggestion, not a clear demonstration of anything.
The AG introduces new perspectives, new information. The AG doesnt directly attack the structure of the marijuana advocates argument.
Thats why (B) is incorrect.
In both arguments, legalizing marijuana causes all the other social effects obviously none of them cause marijuana to become legal! Thats
why (C) is incorrect.
Similar to (D) the AG adds new info, rather than attacking anything about the structure of the marijuana advocates argument. Thats
why (D) is incorrect.

3) Mayor: the commuters from the nearby suburb of Coldstream perennially

complain of a difficult commute to our downtown region. To address these
concerns, we should install high-speed toll collector on the interstate between here
and Coldstream, thus relieving any traffic snarls caused by the hand-operated toll
booths.

Civil engineer: Over 95% of commuters from Coldstream take local roads, not the
interstate, to our downtown region.
The civil engineer uses which of the following techniques in responding to the
mayor?
(A) pointing out that the premise could lead to an opposing conclusion
(B) questioning whether the methods recommended would work in practice
(C) citing evidence that calls into question the assumption of the argument
(D) suggesting, by analogy, that the argument might not support the conclusion
(E) presenting evidence that the proposed solution would have damaging
unforeseen consequences

The mayor suggesting a plan, assuming that most commuters from Coldstream take the interstate. The civil engineer cites data
demonstrating that this is not true. The credited answer is (C) what the civil engineer cites is evidence, and it contradicts an assumption
of the mayors argument.
The civil engineer cites new data: that is, she adds something new to the argument. She doesnt criticize anything about the structure of the
mayors argument. Thats why(A) is incorrect.
Choice (B) is intriguing: if this were correct, it would imply that the civil engineer agreed with the mayor in theory, and was disagreeing about
the way something theoretical would play out in practice.

Thats simply not the case in this question.

The civil engineer is not making any analogy whatsoever: she is citing cold, hard data! Thats why (D) is incorrect.
The mayor wants to solve a problem, and the civil engineer simply points out data that suggests that the mayors solution wont solve the
problem. The current problem remains unsolved, but no new bad thing is predicted. Thats why (E) is incorrect.

4) Marketing chief: The aggressive sales campaign of Product J has made it the most
popular product in the sector. Every individual move we made in that campaign
was wildly successful, and sales of the product continuously rose. If we mount a
similar style sales campaign with Product S, we are likely to vault this into popularity
in its own sector, with a similarly robust sales trajectory.

Consultant: The popularity of Product J preceded the sales campaign and was
responsible for it.
The consultant uses which of the following techniques in responding to the
marketing chief?
(A) questioning the posited relationship of cause and effect
(B) citing evidence that contradicts the assumption of the argument
(C) pointing out that the same premises might support an opposing conclusion
(D) citing evidence that calls into question the strength of the premise
(E) strengthening the argument with further evidence
The marketing chief believes the aggressive sales campaign caused Product Js popularity, and wants to cause the same kind of popularity for
Product S. The consultant points out the popularity of Product J came first and, in some sense, caused the sales campaign. Thus, the
consultant is suggesting that what is cause and what is effect is different than what the marketing chief suggested. Thats why (A) is the
credited answer.
Its not clear that what the consultant says is a measured data (i.e. evidence) or just a perspective or opinion. Therefore, its not clearer
whether we can call it evidence. Because this point is in doubt, we have to reject both choices (B) and (D).
The consultant does not agree with the marketing chiefs premises, so she is not suggesting that these same premises lead to anything else.
Thats why choice (C) is incorrect.
The consultant definitely weakens the marketing chiefs argument, so choice (E) cannot possibly be correct.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.

X leads/can lead/will lead to Y allows the possibility of an alternate route, Z, to reach the effect, Y. Therefore, an option statement
presenting an alternate route does not weaken this conclusion type.

2.

X led to Y is presenting a reason (X) for a specific occurrence in the past (Y). An option statement suggesting an alternate
cause, Z, led to Y, creates doubts on the conclusion and thus, weakens the argument
------------------------------------------------------------

if the question is CAUSE AND AFFECT reasoning + WEAKEN question.:

In these types of questions, following options are to be considered:
A. Find an alternate cause for the stated effect
B. Show that even when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur
C. Show that although the effect occurs, the cause did not occur
D. Show that the stated relationship is in fact reversed
E. Show a statistical problem exists with the data used to make the causal

----------------------------------------------------

Contrapositive:
The one idea that is the most useful on the Critical
Reasoning section of the GMAT exam is the Contrapositive.
Heres how to form a contrapositive:
Step 1: Start out with a cause/effect statement. This is
best done in the if/then format. Heres our example: If
you are a fish, then you live in water. This statement is
arguably true (with the exception of mudskippers, but thats
debatable!).
Step 2: Now, reverse the elements of your statement: If
you live in water, then you are a fish. This statement is not
NECESSARILY true. Many other non-fish organisms live in the
water as well, like whales, seaweed, crustaceans, and
plankton.

Step 3: Negate both sides of the statement: If you dont

live in water, then you are not a fish. This statement is
equally true as the original statement. It is the
CONTRAPOSITIVE!
When you have complex statements, that involve and or
or, you must switch them around. For example, the
contrapositive of If you are at least 18 years old and
registered, then you can vote is If you cant vote, then
you are not at least 18 years old OR not registered. If one
of those two elements is missing, the person cannot vote.
Simple, really!
Now, lets apply our knowledge of the contrapositive to a
Critical Reasoning question, and see why its so useful:
The interview is an essential part of a successful hiring
program because, with it, job applicants who have
personalities that are unsuited to the requirements of the
job will be eliminated from consideration.
The argument above logically depends on which of the
following assumptions?
(A) A hiring program will be successful if it includes
interviews.
(B) The interview is a more important part of a successful
hiring program than is the development of a job description.

(C) Interviewers can accurately identify applicants whose

personalities are unsuited to the requirement of the job.
(D) The only purpose of an interview is to evaluate whether
job applicants personalities are suited to the requirements
of the job.
(E) The fit of job applicants personalities to the
requirements of the job was once the most important factor
in making hiring decisions.
When we look at the question stem, its clear that were
looking for a necessary assumption, or an assumption upon
which the success of the argument depends. Lets break
the argument down into a formal logic statement. Our
keyword here is because that means we need to switch
the order of the arguments elements. Here it is:
If job applicants with unsuitable personalities can be
eliminated from consideration, then interviews are
essential.
Now, make your contrapositive.
If interviews are NOT essential, then job applicants with
unsuitable personalities CANNOT be eliminated from
consideration.
What does this mean to us? This means that if the authors
argument is in favor of interviews, and his proof is that
interviews weed out unsuitable people, we must then select

an answer choice that makes this argument entirely

waterproof. That means that answer choice (C) is the
correct answer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------when you review a CR problem that you found truly challenging, you should do ALL of the following:
Make an analogy for the problem.
if you've read any decent number of my posts on here, you'll notice that i very rarely discuss CR problems by talking about the actual problems
themselvesi almost always create analogies to facilitate understanding. if a CR problem is hard, the difficulty ALWAYS comes from the
specific content/words/topic, and NEVER comes from 'logic' or 'structure'.
if you spend the time to come up with a GOOD analogysomething that may take quite a whileyou may find that it becomes trivially easy to
understand how the original problem works.
Specify exactly why the wrong answers are wrong.
remember, ALL of the wrong answers are COMPLETELY wrong. if you think that one of the wrong answers is just 'worse than the correct answer', then,
nopemore review is in order.
if you think you've discovered some sort of pattern, explore other problems for it.
e.g., i wrote this post an hour or two ago, about 'if':
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p117071
the student who asked this questionand YOU, if you find the same issue challengingshould now look for the 'if' pattern in OTHER problems.
by doing so, you'll be able to...
...see whether it's a real pattern; (if the 'pattern' is broken by other problems then it's not a patern, and you're back to the drawing board)
...see how frequently it (or similar stuff) is tested;
...cement your understanding.
this process could easily take over an hour for a single problem. but, remember, the name of the game is quality, not quantity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------When it comes to these problems, don't try to shoehorn the sentences into generic categories like "conclusion" and (especially) "premise". Even if you
get those categories to work, they're usually too general to help. (E.g., there are all kinds of "conclusions". Predictions; explanations; judgments; etc.
There are also lots of different kinds of "premises".) You should think of them as starting points for your understanding -- not as almighty categories
that contain every idea of every argument in the whole world.
Instead, just pretend it's a normal human conversation, and ask yourself WHY the speaker is saying each thing. (You'll find that these problems are
10000000000 times easier if you think of them as normal conversation, rather than as some weird "academic" thing.)
In the passage about Martin above, the first two reasons are reasons that weigh against the idea that Martin will win. I.e., they are "considerations that
weigh against the prediction".
Note two things: (i) It's really easy to formulate that, if you think of this as a conversation. (ii) These sentences don't fit neatly into any basic category -they aren't really premises (since they aren't used to support anything), and they definitely aren't conclusions, counter-arguments, or background
statements. So you're in trouble if you try to get those categories to work here.
The last thing is "a prediction", although I wouldn't really call it a conclusion

--------------------------------------------------------------

"prediction" means that the argument is predicting that something will happen.
if there is a prediction, it MUST be the conclusion of the argument, unless it is being used as the basis for
future predictions (which it probably won't).
a claim is a statement that is not a fact, and requires an argument and/or supporting evidence.
evidence is FACTUAL information that is used to support a claim.
a consideration can be either a fact or a claim; it's used to support some other claim/conclusion.
------------------------------------------------------as soon as you see 'if xxxx', then you are considering ONLY the 'xxxx' situation.
any situation(s) other than 'xxxx' are irrelevant.
anything bearing on the probability (or improbability) of 'xxxx' is also irrelevant
------------------------------The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function, as measured by the amount of air the
person can expel in one second. The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmoker. Clearly, therefore, one way for
smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.
Which of the following is an assumption on which this argument depends?
A) Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals
B) The lung function of smokers whose diet are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets
C) People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function.
D) Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet changes can.
E) Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream
the first premise states, as fact, the following correlation:
higher vita/min in bloodstream <--> better lung function
that correlation is presented as an established fact, and so we are not allowed to question it. however, notice that the correlation is only asserted for
vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream - i.e., they have to get into the bloodstream in the first place, not merely be ingested.
-notice also that the correlation is a FACT, regardless of whether the person in question is a smoker. in other words, if smokers get higher levels of the
vitamins/minerals into their bloodstreams, then a fortiori they will also have better lung function.
the argument is therefore airtight, provided the smokers can get the vitamins and minerals into their bloodstreams to begin with. that's
the only missing link here - all that's mentioned in the argument is intake, which is an entirely separate matter fromabsorption into the
bloodstream.
choice e is correct because it takes care of the connection between intake and absorption, by establishing that the smokers' intake of vitamins and
minerals will actually make it into the bloodstream.

---------------------------The prairie vole, a small North American grassland rodent, breeds year-round, and a group of voles living
together consists primarily of an extended family, often including two or more litters. Voles commonly live

in large groups from late autumn through winter; from spring through early autumn, however, most voles
live in far smaller groups. The seasonal variation in group size can probably be explained by a seasonal
variation in mortality among young voles.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest support for the explanation offered?
a. it is in the spring and early summer that prairie vole communities generally contain the highest
proportion of young voles.
b. prairie vole populations vary dramatically in size from year to year
c. the prairie vole subsists primarily on broad-leaved plants that are abundant only in spring.
d. winters in the prarie voles' habitat are often harsh, with temperatures that drop well below freezing.
e. snakes, a major predator of young prarie voles, are active only from spring through early autumn
With all due respect, I don't think this is true at all. The difference is huge. In fact, it is the largest
possible difference: we're talking about literally opposite points on the calendar.
If this is not clear, then think about specific months. Say we define "winter" as December through March,
and "autumn" as September through November.
Then the passage says...
Voles commonly live in large groups from November through March; from April through September,
however, most voles live in far smaller groups
"Smaller groups from April to September" very clearly rules out "harsh winters" as a cause of mortality!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Although fullerenes - spherical molecules made entirely of carbon - were first found in the laboratory, they
have since been found in
nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite. Since laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires
distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure, this discovery should give geologists a test case for
evaluating hypothesis about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes
were formed.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
A) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation
B) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a
spacecraft.
C) The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently
formed.
D) The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure
E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions.
Tricky one. I agree B is tempting, but I think I'd go with D here.
Fullerenes found in lab first. (Does it really say "found"? Not created or something like that?)
Then were found in nature.
The lab fullerenes were synthesized at specific T and P.
Therefore, geologists should be able to tell something about T and P of Earth's crust when natural ones
were formed.
Connection is the assumption that the way the fullerenes were formed in the lab is analogous to the way
they were formed in nature.

I'd label choice B "slightly weakens" - it opens up the possibility that maybe the fullerenes found on Earth
came from outer space. Doesn't mean they definitely did, though.
Then I get to D and realize it's better than B - it strongly undermines. The naturally occurring Earth
fullerenes are definitely of a different structure than the lab-made ones. If that's the case, then I can't just
assume that the process to make them in the lab is analogous to the process to make them naturally
the reason (b) is wrong is that it's totally irrelevant. (so what if fullerenes are found on meteorites? that doesn't change anything about this argument.)
Make sure you always ask what idea is in the conclusion that is not in the evidence and what idea is in the evidence that is not in the
conclusion, and then bridge the gap. This is the classic Kaplan method for arguments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Think about GMAT Critical Reasoning skills. All the newspapers and journals I mentioned above present
arguments. They certainly will report on public figures and business figures who are making arguments
of various kinds. In the Op/Ed section of a newspaper, the editors of the newspaper state their own
opinions, often in the form of logical arguments for or against something. In all these arguments, apply
GMAT CR analysis. What are the evidence, the conclusion, and the assumptions? What are possible
strengtheners or weakeners? What additional information would you need to have to evaluate an
argument? Pay close attention to what kinds of information are most persuasive, and what kinds of
assumptions are typical. This is a very funny thing about GMAT Critical Reasoning: you dont need
outside expertise on any particular topic, but you do need a general sense of the push-and-pull of real
world scenarios, and you only get this through outside reading.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Smithtown Universitys fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential
donors they contacted. This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate
that they were doing a good job. On the contrary, since the people most likely to donate are those who
have donated in the past, good fundraisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the
donor base. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.
Which of the following, if true, provides more support for the argument?
A. Smithtown Universitys fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had
never given before about as frequently as were fundraisers for other universities in their contacts with
such people.
B. This year the average size of the donations to Smithtown University from new donors when the
universitys fund-raisers had contacted was larger than the average size of donations from donors who
had given to the university before.
C. This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously
donated to it were made without the universitys fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.
D. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Smithtown University this year
were from donors who had never given to the university before.
E. More than half of the money raised by Smithtown Universitys fund-raisers came from donors who had
never previously donated to the university
Conclusion:
Smithtown's fundraisers did not do a good job.
Premises:
Doing a good job requires constantly trying less likely prospects (donors who have not donated before)
Smithtown's fundraisers got donations from 80% of the donors that they contacted.

This success rate is especially high for fundraisers.

Assumptions:
Smithtown's fundraisers did not constantly try less likely prospects (new donors)
The donations that the fundraisers received did not come from new donors.
Prediction:
The correct answer will suggest that the fundraisers did not contact new donors (less likely prospects)
and thus did not do good job.
Answer choice A:
This answer choice states that Smithtown's success rate with potential new donors was not higher than
that of other universities. This means that Smithtown's higher donation rate was due to donations NOT
from new donors (less likely prospects) but from OLD donors. This information supports the assumption
that THE DONATIONS DID NOT COME FROM NEW DONORS and thus strengthens the conclusion that
Smithtown's fundraisers DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB.
Answer choices B, D and E:
These all weaken the conclusion because they suggest that the donations came from new donors. If the
donations came from new donors, then the fundraisers did a good job.
Answer choice C:
This answer choice tells us only that the fundraisers did not contact old donors. To support the conclusion
that the fundraisers did not do a good job, we need an answer choice that shows that they did not contact
new donors (less likely prospects).
The correct answer is A.
--------------------------------------Appendicitis (inflammation of the appendix) is potentially fatal; consequently, patients with symptoms
strongly suggesting appendicitis almost have their appendix removed. The appropriate surgery is low-risk
but performed unnecessarily in about 20 percent of all cases. A newly developed internal scan for
appendicitis is highly accurate, producing two misdiagnoses for every 98 correct diagnoses. Clearly, using
this test, doctors can largely avoid unnecessary removals of the appendix without, however, performing
any fewer necessary ones than before, since .......
Which of the following logically completes the passage?
A. the patients who are correctly diagnosed with this test as not having appendicitis invariably have
medical conditions that are much less serious than appendicitis
B. the misdiagnoses produced by this test are always instances of attributing appendicitis to someone
who does not, in fact, have it
C. all of the patients who are diagnosed with this test as having appendicitis do, in fact,have appendicitis
D. every patient who is diagnosed with this test as having appendicitis has more than one of the
symptoms generally associated with appendicitis
E. the only patients who are misdiagnosed using this test are patients who lack one or more of the
symptoms that are generally associated with appendicitis
The conclusion here is that if doctors use this new test for appendicitis, they can largely avoid
unnecessary surgeries without performing fewer necessary surgeries than before.
The evidence is that, historically, the surgery has been performed unnecessarily about 20% of the time.
and this new test will only produce two misdiagnoses for every 98 correct diagnoses.
When it comes to diagnostic tests, there are two kinds of errors. False positives: you test positive when

you do not, in fact, have the disease. And false negatives: you test negative when you do have the
disease. The false positive scenario leads to the unnecessary surgery, because in this instance, the
patient thinks he has appendicitis, but does not. So when we say that 20% of the surgeries were
unnecessary, we're talking about a high false positive rate. The new test is only incorrect 2% of the time,
so it certainly seems as though it will be cutting down on false positives, and therefore unnecessary
surgeries. The question then is whether the inaccurate diagnoses from the new test will result in more
false negatives, and consequently, fewer necessary surgeries.
Answer choices B reads: the misdiagnoses produced by this test are always instances of attributing
appendicitis to someone who does not, in fact, have it
This tell us that the misdiagnoses are all false positives. If there are no false negatives, then we don't
have to worry about doctors performing fewer necessary surgeries than before.
-----------------------

Fact: Asthma, a bronchial condition, is much less common ailment than hay fever, an allergic
inflammation of the nasal passages.
Fact: over 95 percent of people who have asthma also suffer from hay fever.
If the information given as facts above is true, which of the following must also be true?
A. Hay fever is a prerequisite for the development of asthma
B. Asthma is a prerequisite for the development of hay fever
C. Those who have neither hay fever nor asthma comprise less than 5 percent of the total population
D. The number of people who have both of these ailments is greater than the number of people who have
only one of them
E. The percentage of people suffering from hay fever who also have asthma is lower than 95 percent
ans: E
think about it
take values
draw venn diagram

---------------------------------------------------------------------the meaning of 'big percentage' and/or 'small percentage' depends entirely on context

---------------------------autumnthe season after summer and before winter, in the northern hemisphere from September to
November and in the southern hemisphere from March to May.
------------------

spring-

the season after winter and before summer, in which vegetation begins to appear, in the
northern hemisphere from March to May and in the southern hemisphere from September to
November

-------------------"prediction" means that the argument is predicting that something will happen.
if there is a prediction, it MUST be the conclusion of the argument, unless it is being used as the basis for future predictions (which it probably won't).
a claim is a statement that is not a fact, and requires an argument and/or supporting evidence.
evidence is FACTUAL information that is used to support a claim.
a consideration can be either a fact or a claim; it's used to support some other claim/conclusion.
-----------------------------------------Serious individual art collectors are usually discreet when making significant purchases or sales related to their collections. At art auctions, for example,
these collectors often place anonymous bids for major artwork. Therefore, the whereabouts of most of the world's most valuable artwork is probably
unknown.
Each of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion above EXCEPT:
The value of a piece of art is purely subjective.
Serious art collectors usually publicize their new artwork several months after making a purchase.
Museums own the vast majority of the world's most valuable artwork.
Of all the individuals in the world who own extremely valuable artwork, only a few are considered serious art collectors.
The private collections of most serious individual art collectors are often displayed in public settings.
ans: A
first question of interest: if you contend that choice a is wrong, then which choice do you contend is right, and why?
remember that process of elimination is golden. choice a is sort of strange (discussed below), but it's the only choice that doesn't directly weaken the
argument, and as such should be picked.
-i agree with you that choice a is weird. it doesn't directly weaken the logic of the argument, though.
rather, i guess (and i gather you, also, are saying) that it causes the argument to equivocate: if it is accepted as a premise, then the argument is at once
talking about 'valuable' artwork and claiming that said 'value' is in the eye of the beholder. i agree that this is a problem: exposing equivocation in an
argument doesn't, strictly speaking, weaken the line of argument, but it does cast doubt on the validity of the argument (in a reductio ad absurdum sort
of way)
-----------------------------

major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Bakers Beach, the worlds sole nesting
ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from
hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Bakers
Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists
prediction that the worlds Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has
proven unfounded.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in
refutation of the environmentalists prediction?
A

A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither
Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Bakers Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Bakers Beach to lay their eggs
when they are ten years old.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea
turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Bakers
Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant
decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on

Merrick sea turtle eggs.

E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase
the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Bakers Beach to
nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.
-------------------------------------------------------------In 1960s studies of rats, scientists found that crowding increases the number of
attacks among the animals significantly. But in recent experiments in which rhesus
monkeys were placed in crowded conditions, although there was an increase in
instances of coping- behavior-such as submissive gestures and avoidance of
dominant individuals-attacks did not become any more frequent. Therefore it is not
likely that, for any species of monkey, crowding increases aggression as significantly as
was seen in rats.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. All the observed forms of coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys living in uncrowded
conditions.
B. In the studies of rats, nondominant individuals were found to increasingly avoid dominant
individuals when the animals were in crowded conditions.
C. Rhesus monkeys respond with aggression to a wider range of stimuli than any other monkeys do.
D. Some individual monkeys in the experiment were involved in significantly more attacks than the
other monkeys were.
E. Some of the coping behavior displayed by rhesus monkeys is similar to behavior rhesus monkeys
use to bring to an end an attack that has begun.
What we have here is a "strengthen the conclusion" question. To strengthen a conclusion, you need to make one of
the argument's underlying assumptions into a supporting premise by stating it explicitly. This argument is
essentially:
1. Crowding leads to aggression in rats.
2. However, crowding does NOT lead to aggression in rhesus monkeys.
3. Therefore, crowding probably does NOT lead to aggression in monkeys the way it does in rats.
Statements 1 and 2 are premises. Statement 3 is our conclusion. The question you want to ask yourself is: "What
assumption are they making in between statements 2 and 3?" That assumption is going to be the answer to this
type of question.
In this example, you can't assume that the behavior of Rhesus monkeys would reflect the behavior of other
monkeys. Although we could probably justify this statement if we watch a lot of Discovery Channel, we can't use
that external knowledge on the GMAT. Answer choice C is a version of this assumption; it makes explicit the fact
that rhesus monkeys are actually more aggressive than other monkeys. The natural next step of this chain of logic
is that if crowding doesn't make rhesus monkeys act aggressively, it probably doesn't make any other monkeys act
aggressively.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The chemical adenosine is released by brain cells when those cells are active.
Adenosine then binds to more and more sites on cells in certain areas of the
brain, as the total amount released gradually increases during wakefulness.
During sleep, the number of sites to which adenosine is bound decreases. Some
researchers have hypothesized that it is the cumulative binding of adenosine to a
large number of sites that causes the onset of sleep.
Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the researchers
hypothesis?
A. Even after long periods of sleep when adenosine is at its lowest concentration
in the brain, the number of brain cells bound with adenosine remains

very large.
B. Caffeine, which has the effect of making people remain wakeful, is known to interfere with the
binding of adenosine to sites on brain cells.
C. Besides binding to sites in the brain, adenosine is known to be involved in
biochemical reactions throughout the body.
D. Some areas of the brain that are relatively inactive nonetheless release
some adenosine.
E. Stress resulting from a dangerous situation can preserve wakefulness even
when brain levels of bound adenosine are high.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Question :
Debater: The average amount of overtime per month worked by an employee in the manufacturing division of the Haglut Corporation is 14 hours. Most
employees of the Haglut Corporation work in the manufacturing division. Furthermore, the average amount of overtime per month worked by any employee in
the company generally does not fluctuate much from month to month. Therefore, each month, most employees of the Haglut Corporation almost certainly
work at least some overtime.
The debater's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?
(A) It takes for granted that the manufacturing division is a typical division of the corporation with regard to the average amount of overtime its employees
work each month.
(B) It takes for granted that if a certain average of amount of overtime is worked each month by each employee of the Haglut Corporation, then approximately
the same amount of overtime must be worked each month by each employee of the manufacturing division.
(C) It confuses a claim from which the argument's conclusion about the Haglut Corporation would necessarily follow with a claim that would follow from the
argument's conclusion only with a high degree of probability.
(D) It overlooks the possibility that even if, on average, a certain amount of overtime is worked by the members of some group, many members of that group
may work no overtime at all.
(E) It overlooks the possibility that even if most employees of the corporation work some overtime each month, anyone corporate employee may, in some
months, work no overtime.
Argument Analysis :
Conclusion : Each Month Most employees of H Corp almost certainly work at least some overtime
Premise
1. The average amount of overtime per month worked by an employee in the manufacturing division of the Haglut Corporation is 14 hours
2. Most employees of the Haglut Corporation work in the manufacturing division
[
Pattern :
1. Conclusion is made on Average or percentage.
Note : Whenever conclusion is made on Average or proportion or Percentage, first and foremost we should check is Bases (Real numbers) are proper enough to
make that conclusion)
Let say for Example
Hcorp has 10 employees and monthly Overtime burned = 140 (14/month).
Argument says that almost all has some overtime. might be true.
However it may happen, that only guy in any given time is burning those 140 hours and rest 9 does not work overtime at all, in this case only few has overtime
hours.
We need to find the option which says, conclusion is not proper since the Average is not the real indicator of the overtime worker proportion.
Only Option D says this.
(If we know this pattern, I bet you see this in your exam and you will solve this within your TAT for any CR)

------------------------------------------------

That the application of new technology can increase the productivity of

existing coal mines is demonstrated byt he case of Tribinia's coal industry.
Coal output per miner in Tribinia is double what it was five years ago, even
though no new mines have opened.
Which of the following can be properly concluded from the statement about

coal output per miner in the passage?

A. If the number of miners working in Tribian coal mines has remained
constant in the past five years, Tribinia's total coal production has
doubled in that period of time.
B. Any individual Tribian coal mine that achieved an increase in overall
output in the past five years has also experienced an increase in output per
minor.
nope.
see above -- you can't assume that the NATIONAL trend applies to INDIVIDUAL mines.
also, see above again -- it's entirely possible that this result could have come from adding miners to the
mine's work force.
can't prove the statement.
C. If any new coal mines had opened in Tribiniain the past five years, then
the increase in output per miner would have been even greater than it
actually was.
D. If any individual Tribinian coal mine has not increased its output per
miner in the past five years, then that mine's overall output has declined
or remained constant.
nope.
see above -- it's possible that the mines added workers.
if a mine added workers, then its TOTAL OUTPUT could increase despite a decrease in the per-worker
output.
(i.e., think about 100 workers producing 3 units each, vs. 200 workers producing 2 units each.)
can't prove the statement.
E. In Tribinia the cost of producing a given quantity of coal has declined
over the past five years.
----------------------------------------------------------A company plans to develop a prototype weeding machine that uses cutting blades with optical sensors and
microprocessors that distinguish weeds from crop plants by differences in shade of color. The inventor of the machine
claims that it will reduce labor costs by virtually eliminating the need for manual weeding.
Which of the following is a consideration in favor of the companys implementing its plan to develop the prototype?
A. There is a considerable degree of variation in shade of color between weeds of different species.
B. The shade of color of some plants tends to change appreciably over the course of their growing season.
C. When crops are weeded manually, overall size and leaf shape are taken into account in distinguishing crop plants
from weeds.
D. Selection and genetic manipulation allow plants of virtually any species to be economically bred to have a
distinctive shade of color without altering their other characteristics.

E. Farm laborers who are responsible for the manual weeding of crops carry out other agricultural duties at times in
the growing season when extensive weeding is not necessary
-------------------------------------------------------A certain tropical island received food donations in the form of powdered milk for distribution to its poorest residents,
who were thought to be malnourished. Subsequently, the rate of liver cancers among those islanders increased
sharply. The donated milk was
probably to blame: recent laboratory research on rats has shown that rats briefly exposed to the substances aflatoxin
tend to develop liver cancer when fed casein, a milk protein. This result is relevant because _______.
A. in the tropics, peanuts, a staple of these island residents, support a mold growth that produces aflatoxin
B. the liver is more sensitive to carcinogens, of which aflatoxin may be one, than most other bodily organs
C. casein is not the only protein contained in milk
D. powdered milk is the most appropriate form in which to send milk to a tropical destination
E. the people who were given the donated milk had been screened for their ability to digest milk
Milk was imported to the island
People on the island got liver cancer.
This is blamed on the imported milk.
Because research has shown that if people have milk protein and aflatoxin.
SO
We know they have milk, we know they have cancer, we need an answer that also tells us they have aflatoxin. Answer A does that.
E tells us nothing about the existence of aflatoxin without which, the conclusion is not valid
----------------------------------------